Recently in Economy/Post-Scarcity Category

Thanks to Ming for this.

Britt Blaser says some very interesting things about money and capitalism, which I'm trying to wrap my mind around. He says we're watching the death throes of what he calls "Managerial Capitalism", which I agree with. And he also seems to feel that a more grassroots kind of self-organizing, reputation based kind of economy ought to replace it, which I also agree with. And then he says:

"Money is Free. Get Used To It."

Capitalistically funded and traditionally managed big companies are terribly inefficient and deliver things many people don't really want, and they're bad at leading people to fulfill their potentials and use their skills really well. So, why are they still the main thing? I'd say, because of the first point, that the people who create them are more well-informed about some important things than you and I. Not well-informed about what we really want, or the best ways of producing that, but well-informed about capital - how to get it, keep it and increase it. And how to keep the general public in the dark concerning your game. They make it look like we all can be co-owners of the capital, owning stocks, investing, having good credit, having a nice credit line, etc. But that is just a distraction, I think. The real thing that would make a difference would be the information about how to organize people and resources efficiently and effectively, without needing investment capital and without needing managers. I.e. the knowledge of how to bring the elements into synergy, without requiring the one guy with all the money to be in charge.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ming on this. I don't think that the current form of capitalism is anything remotely resembling a free-market. I support the idea of people creating community around entirely different economic principles. For me the key is free and consensual. What we have instead is a top-heavy, hierarchical, corporate-centered tyranny that uses the strong-arm of the law (read "ability to imprison or kill you") to get what they want at the expense of democratic principles, environmental sanity, innovation, and basic civil liberties. See the story below on the recent blow to the spirit of copyright to see my point. Its my strong feeling, that without these strong-arm protections that corporations enjoy, they would die and give way to a more transparent, accessible and bottoms-up type of adhoc organization that is responsive to peoples needs. Since such an organization would be more responsive to the market, in a true free-market such organizations would win in the the marketplace over the corpocracies we have now. So I suppose I'm more accurately a left-leaning libertarian free-market capitalist if there is such a thing. Of course I've always referred to myself as an up-winger.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) |

Thanks to developments in anonymous communication, such as Freenet and the invisible irc project, anonymous digital cash has become a reality. Yodel Bank is offering 'yodels' as a form of currency you can exchange with people who you've never met outside of anonymous means. For example, you could pay for some web design or a hosting service anonymously, play video poker with real anonymous money on IIP, or make a donation to a charity without disclosing who you are. Yodel Bank is relatively new, but now that you can transfer money over IIP and Freenet, a real vibrant anonymous economy is springing up, and it's unclear how government will react to this 'private' banking.

By Paul | Permalink |

In Capital, Power and Ecology I suggested that "ecological" constraints are inherent in a global economy, and how capital rewards liberty over tyranny. So far capital has won hands down, lets hope it can survive the current onslaught of corruption and criminality long enough to see us out of global war and irreversible ecological disaster.

In the meantime there are many other developments on the technological front that hold promise for liberating capital, free enterprise, and fostering greater degrees of participatory democracy than ever seen before. Tools like reputation systems and p2p adhoc wireless mesh-networks are so disruptive in their potential its hard to predict what their effect will be, but they are sure to change society as radically as the internet itself - I would say much more so. For starters, adhoc wireless smart mobs will greater power over where capital flows. Companies like World Com and Enron who refuse to open their books and become more transparent will be much less likely to attract capital and investment than those companies that do. Therefore the drive of companies is to become increasing transparent and accountable to their "stakeholders" who in turn have the ability to move their capital around with the simple push of a button. This represents and eminent power shift away from centrally controlled hierarchies to bottom-up grass-roots capital structures. The future of the corporation is built from the bottom-up not the top-down. Meanwhile we are likely to see radical advancements in medicine, longevity, cheap space access, nanotechnology, and environmentally sustainable energy systems.

Then we have the current tyranny of the content industry as embodied by the RIAA and MPAA and other outdated business models built on scarcity. At the moment, the media giants seem to be winning with draconian legislation like the DMCA as part of their arsenal. But don't loose hope yet. These too ultimately restrict the flow of capital as well. What we are seeing are old modes of capital and collusion being increasingly threatened by more liquid and liberated economies of scale and zero duplication cost of the internet. Regardless of the legislative and technological restrictions implemented in the US, their are other countries who are not as keen to follow in the same footsteps.

China, not normally a bastion of freedom and democracy, is adopting open-source software at a blinding pace despite Microsoft's best efforts to shove their bloated, expensive and restrictive licensing schemes down their throats. And while AMD and Intel build in digital restrictions into their processors, China has started its own processor initiative called 'Dragon'. Kind of ironic, that a nation know for its gross human rights abuses could potentially be a bastion of digital liberty. China is not pursuing this path because of their freedom loving nature, but to increase their economic independence and capital liquidity. It just happens that increasing capital requires a corresponding increase in liberty if its to become sustainable. If China develops their own microprocessors and uses free open-source software, they are beholden to no one for their capitalization, especially the "imperialistic" US. So while the US chokes on expensive and restrictive digital lock-downs, China will be enjoying a more open platform. So in the global economy where do you think the capital will go? If the US hopes to compete in the global marketplace, its either going to have to loosen its digital restrictions or loose its place as the economic super-power. So the question is can the US continue as an economic superpower without bankrupting itself through global imperialism and domestic tyranny?

We will soon find out.

By Paul | Permalink |